In re Farrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Farrington

257 A.D.2d 914, 682 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 470

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 914 (In re Farrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Farrington, 257 A.D.2d 914, 682 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in .1982 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rensselaer County.

Respondent has failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum obtained by petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, and with a hearing notice from petitioner which directed him to appear for an examination under oath and produce relevant records on December 16, 1998, regarding complaints filed by two clients. Respondent has further failed to respond to petitioner’s instant motion to suspend him from practice pending his compliance with the subpoena. Respondent last communicated with petitioner by fax dated December 16, 1998, advising he was closing his law practice and was willing to resign from the Bar.

Under such circumstances, we exercise our discretion (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4 [b]) and grant petitioner’s motion (see, e.g., Matter of Roberts, 224 AD2d 801).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further, ordered that respondent is suspended from practice pending his full compliance with the subpoena duces tecum dated November 24, 1998, and with the hearing notice dated December 4, 1998, effective 20 days from the date of this order, and until further order of this Court; and it is further, ordered that for the period of suspension respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further, ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rule (22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in .1982 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rensselaer County.

Respondent has failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum obtained by petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, and with a hearing notice from petitioner which directed him to appear for an examination under oath and produce relevant records on December 16, 1998, regarding complaints filed by two clients. Respondent has further failed to respond to petitioner’s instant motion to suspend him from practice pending his compliance with the subpoena. Respondent last communicated with petitioner by fax dated December 16, 1998, advising he was closing his law practice and was willing to resign from the Bar.

Under such circumstances, we exercise our discretion (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4 [b]) and grant petitioner’s motion (see, e.g., Matter of Roberts, 224 AD2d 801).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further, ordered that respondent is suspended from practice pending his full compliance with the subpoena duces tecum dated November 24, 1998, and with the hearing notice dated December 4, 1998, effective 20 days from the date of this order, and until further order of this Court; and it is further, ordered that for the period of suspension respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further, ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rule (22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 914, 682 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-farrington-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack